User talk:B. Fairbairn/Archive1

Diana, Princess of Wales
As the daughter of an Earl she was called Lady Diana Spencer prior to her marriage. When she married in 1981 the rank of her husband took precedence and she then became HRH Princess of Wales, and the former 'Lady' rank was dropped. On her later divorce the HRH was removed and she became Diana, Princess of Wales. Throughout her life she continued to be known widely across both America and Australia as "Princess Di" but this was colloquial affectionate useage and technically incorrect.

Armed Forces Rank Insignia
I believe all Vice Admirals are 3 star ranks, independent of how many stars they have in the insignia on their shoulders. You might find List of comparative military ranks useful. Also Air force officer ranks, Army officer ranks, Naval officer ranks, Ranks and insignia of NATO and perhaps United Kingdom and United States military ranks compared too. One that interests me is that a 5 star French general's insignia contains 7 stars. Thanks for raising my interest! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Stars' is a term originating in, as far as I am aware, the USA (United States of America). And as can be the American way, they attempt to impose their beliefs on other nations.  In navies in which the number of stars or pips differ from the American set up (as submissively adopted by NATO and the Commonwealth forces), the one-star, two-star etc basis of ranking is not relevant.  I wonder where this common interest in ranking (definitely with an 'r', as opposed to a 'b' or 'w' - sometimes the same thing) comes from.   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder where this common interest ...  There's no mystery here; organisations in the “emergency” environment need clear lines of command, control and responsibility. Within a single organisation, this generally doesn’t pose much of a problem. However, in multi-organisational environments, this may not always be clear. Hence, the common interest comes from the desire (need?) to have clear lines of authority. Not withstanding this, such environments are dominated by “toys for the boys”, excessive amounts of testosterone, and the “mine is bigger than yours” mentality. This is my explanation for why there seems to be a very high correlation between “r” and “w”. I don’t know the origin of the “stars” system, but there seems little doubt that the US has adopted it with zeal and, (as is often their habit), “made it their own”. I don’t know that they attempt to impose it on others; I personally think they just press on ahead in ignorance of, and with no awareness of, what anyone else is doing(!) I don’t think you’ve got it quite right when you say that it is a blanket “not relevant”. Internal to the country, that’s possibly true, but in multinational coalition environments, the ability to quickly establish clear lines of authority is important, and the “1,2,3,4,5-star” nomenclature is simple and unambiguous. Finally, you say, “I disagree”. With what is it that you disagree? The concept of a “universal” star rank system? Well, yes, “universal” is without doubt stretching it, but it is a system that is widely used, even by some countries which are independent of US “partnerships”. Or is there something else with which you disagree? Changing topic (slightly), were any of those pages I mentioned of any interest to you? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the pages were interesting viewing. Cheers.  The one-two-three-four-five star ranking system only applies to navies that have a Commodore rank (or equivalent).  In a navy such as Cuba's, there is no Commodore and thus the Rear Admiral rank is really at the 'one star' level and the Vice Admiral is at the 'two star' level not the 'three star' level.  Hence not all Vice Admirals are 3 star rank.  The use of the term 'Stars' really can be ambiguous seeing as some navies have different numbers of stars on shoulder boards for what is essentially the same rank in other navies.  A less confusing option is to use the NATO OF-1 to OF-10 ranking system, though it is not entirely accurate in situations where there is no equivalent ranking for a rank.   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "My disagreement is that the one-two-three-four-five star ranking system only applies to navies that have a Commodore rank (or equivalent)." - I'm afraid that's not quite the case. (For simplicity, let's drop the 5th level for the moment). There are plenty of combinations of levels used, the most common being: 1,2,3,4; 0,2,3,4; and -,2,3,4. This is mostly based on whether a Commodore is considered to be an Admiral or not. In general, and until recently, a Commodore was NOT considered to be an admiral. The Americans got around the problem by calling BOTH their one-star AND their two-star a Rear Admiral. The Brits are a bit vague on the matter - in 2001 they changed their lowest ranking admiral from rear-admiral to commodore, and changed the rear-admiral insignia to have 2 stars, but the poor commodore doesn't get a star on his shoulder! Yes, the Cubans don't have a commodore rank, but nevertheless, the rear-admiral is a two star - they just don't have a one star. I'm afraid your conclusion that "not all Vice Admirals are 3 star rank" based on that line of reasoning is not correct. The cases where ""not all Vice Admirals are 3 star rank" are from situations deriving from different models of admiral. Have another look at General officer and Admiral. "The use of the term 'Stars' really can be ambiguous ... " - Agreed. "A less confusing option is to use the NATO OF-1 to OF-10 ranking system, though it is not entirely accurate in situations where there is no equivalent ranking for a rank." - Also agreed. So, I think the conclusion is: "There is no simple solution." Do you agree? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed! And standardisation would make things easier, but then some degree of individuality would vanish.  "This is mostly based on whether a Commodore is considered to be an Admiral or not."  The same applies to army Brigadier.   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. But to some degree this is addressed by the rank being named either "Brigadier" or "Brigadier General". I was suprised to learn that Oz & the Brits had BGs through WWI and into the 1920s. At that time they both "de-generalised" the rank and called it just "Brigadier". So, in fact, Oz has six "star levels": 0*=Brig - post 1920s - not a general; 1*=BG - pre 1920s - is a general; 2*,3*,4*,5*= as you would expect, and they are generals. Apparently for Oz, BG was NOT a "permanent" rank (except in retirement!) - apparently the rationale was that they didn't want too many permanent generals, so LtCols and Cols were temporarily promoted to BG for a particular posting, then at the end of their posting (if they hadn't been earmarked for LtGen), they returned to their "permanent" rank. The change from BG to Brig got around that problem by Brig not being a general! So, in WWI there were lots of generals, but the BGs were "temporary". In WWII, the Brigs were "permanent", but the number of generals was kept at an "acceptable" level by virtue of the fact that the Brigs were not generals. (And still aren't in Oz.) Also in Oz, I believe the commodores are not admirals, but they do have a star on their shoulder. (Whereas I belive the British commodore is now an admiral, but doesn't have a star.) I don't think anyone has ever said this was simple! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Confusion is also caused by the changing of ranks over time. One police force I know of went through about half-a-dozen changes in ranks over the years.  It had the ranks: Constable, Senior Constable, 3rd Class Sergeant, 2nd Class Sergeant, 1st Class Sergeant, Inspector, Chief Inspector, Superintendent, Chief Superintendent, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner.  And ended up with: Constable, Senior Constable, Sergeant, Senior Sergeant, Superintendent, Commander, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner.   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Check out the links to see some variations in the number of stars worn on naval uniforms for each rank.                   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ranks In Other Countries
Would you like any help with your table? * Canada no stars - they use maple leaves (no 5th level) * Denmark 0, 1, 2, 3, - (no 5th level) * Norway ?, 2, 3, 4, - (no 5th level) Note that Military ranks of the Dutch armed forces is very different to http://www.uniforminsignia.net/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=79, which reduces my trust in www.uniforminsignia.net, because I know a Dutch rear admiral is a "Schout bij Nacht", not a "General-majoor", and a Dutch major general is a "Generaal Majoor" (two "a"s in generaal). There was no intention of being cheeky. It looked like you may be embarking on a huge job, and I was offering to help. I guess by assuming that you were intending to expand the table, I made a wrong assumption. Sorry. What is it you are wanting to achieve? (Or have you already achieved it?) That's all for me for tonight. Until tomorrow. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I misread your communication. Thanks for the offer.  Actually this (Vice Admiral & 3 Stars) has been a learning experience: setting up my first wiki references and first wiki table!   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

War-Time Only Ranks
Switching topic slightly - the top level rank in the UK army and UK navy, and US army and US navy is normally a war-time only rank. The rest of the time a member one rank down is chosen as head of the armed forces. Also of note is the fact that the UK air-force ranks are to some degree based on the UK navy ranks, whereas the US air-force ranks are exactly the same as the US army ranks. B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. "the top level rank in the UK army and UK navy, and US army and US navy is normally a war-time only rank." - war-time or ceremonial or honorary, particularly UK. e.g. HRH Prince Philip is a (the?) 5 star in most commonwealth armed forces,(e.g. Australia has only ever had three Field Marshals, and Phil is one of them!), and until the early 1990s, the retiring head of the UK forces was promoted to 5 star on retirment. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * New Zealand does not have an Admiral of the Fleet rank. In fact the Kiwis do not even have an Admiral!   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On what are you basing that? Agree that NZ does not have a "full" admiral, but HRH Prince Philip is an Australian FM and Admiral of the Fleet, and a NZ FM and Admiral of the Fleet. i.e. Look at: Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Australian Navy); Admiral of the Fleet (Royal New Zealand Navy); Field Marshal (Australia); Field Marshal (New Zealand) You might also find Field Marshal interesting. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are honorary military appointments. Same as when Prince Philip wears an Admiral of the Fleet uniform - it is just for show - he is not an actual admiral.  The United Kingdom has had real Field Marshalls and Admirals of the Fleet during and after wars.  Australia and New Zealand have not.   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) "Those are honorary military appointments." - Yes, but... Phil is a "real" FM and a "real" Admiral of the Fleet. The fact that he doen't exercise his authority (and the fact that there would be a heck of a fuss if he did), does not alter the fact. 2) "Australia ... has not." - Wrong. Oz has had three FM. Look at Field Marshal (Australia). Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay, calm down! You think you are right and I think I am right and that is how it goes.   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear me! I didn't realise I was sounding a bit "hot and strong". Sorry! I have to tell you that I have been and am enjoying this little exercise, and I hope you are too. If you are not finding my comments useful, please don't hesitate to say so, and I'll stop making them. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh
No, not at all - I have had a long day at work and did not feel like arguing. Am all relaxed now and happy to continue the dispute. Well, well, there you go - Sir Thomas Blamey 1951, Lord Birdwood 1925, and the Duke of Edinburgh 1954. I had no idea. Thank you for your correction. B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Am all relaxed now" - What's your secret? (I could use some a lot of it right now.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no secret: a half-hour jog, a long cold shower, a long cold drink and a plate of food. Talking about the Duke of Edinburgh - on a visit of his to Australia back in the early 70’s my father was one of his police ‘escorts’.  Dad remembers a couple of things about him.  Here is one: Prince Philip was taken to visit an elderly fellow who had lived all his life in Alice Springs and had made a comprehensive study of the history of the town, the flora and fauna there.  As Prince Philip approached the old fellow his secretary briefed him “This is the fellow who knows everything about Alice Springs.”  Philip walked up to the fellow and said “So, this is the man who knows everything about nothing.”.  The poor old bloke did not know what to say.  Dad was amused; he knew straight away what Philip meant – Alice Springs is as nothing compared to the rest of the world, the galaxy, the universe.  Talk about a dry wit.   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Talk about a dry wit." - Indeed. I have two "Phil the Greek" stories - neither are anywhere near as interesting as yours. 1) I was 5 or 6 years old. The Royal Limo was going to drive down our street en-route to HMY Britannia which was berthed at Outer Harbor. (Bother! The article doesn't explain the American spelling, and I can't remember the reason! Conversely, Victor Harbor gives an explanation, but not the one I'm familiar with. The story I know is that V.H. was a whaling station established by a group of Americans. Ho hum - I digress. As I was saying, The Royal Limo was going to drive down our street en-route to HMY Britannia which was berthed at Outer Harbor. So, I stood out the front of my house and waited, and when the limo came past, I waved. And Phil tapped Liz on the shoulder and pointed at me, and they both waved. 2) (Many years later) My wife and I and some friends and their children were wandering around Windsor Great Park when a green Jaguar came down the Long Walk. The Long Walk is NOT a public road, so we were staring into the back seat trying to determine who was in the car. Then the driver waved at our friends' kids, and we realised Phil was driving, and Liz was in the front passenger seat. Your dad's story is more interesting!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your stories are interesting. It is not everyday you see the royal family.  Coincidentally the Queen and Prince Philip drove past my parent's home when I was about 12 years old.  They were visiting a home a few houses up the street.  I watched them drive past our place and then walked up the street and saw them get out, go in the house for a short while, and then come back out.  Unfortunately there is nothing special to report!  I just stood there watching them and thinking "so there is the Queen."   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Motivation
Changing topic: What do you want to achieve? I'm enjoying interacting with you, and am happy to assist you in achieving your goals in order to continue interacting with you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What do I want to achieve? In relation to wikipedia, I simply want to gain new knowledge, come across people with similar interests, correct inaccuracies, and learn more about how to use wikipedia which is a fantastic tool (this is beginning to sound like an advertisement).  How about yourself?   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "How about yourself?" - From my point of view good question! I should ask it of myself more often. Short vague answer: "Lots of things". Short slightly less vague, slightly more informative answer: Contribute something useful "to society" so I can make a positive difference, (or failing that, feel like I'm making a positive difference), enjoy myself in the process, and interact with the more pleasant and interesting members in this environment.  fyi, My main project is J150W, but no-one else has shown any interest, so it's not a collaborative project, and therefore rather dull work.  North Terrace, Adelaide intersects with a few interesting people, so is more fulfilling.  The Australian military history enthusiasts are active, but tend to be a bit "intense". (Yes, you're allowed to be amused - I'm aware that I can be "intense", so if I think that they are too intense for me ... ).  Interacting with you is easy-going and enjoyable, and hopefully I'm helping you gain new knowledge of areas I have an interest in. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * After looking at J150W I feel selfish; I have no projects involving anything that contributes "to society". Reading the lines above it seems to me they are a bit negative and self-deprecating ("rather dull work" and "no-one else has shown any interest").  If I am right there is no need to be negative.  If I can offer some friendly advice: be positive.  I live in Queensland, but did spend two months living in Adelaide many years ago.  Unfortunately I did not get an opportunity to explore the city as the entire time was spent in hospital (I was flown to Adelaide for facial plastic surgery - Adelaide has the Australian Craniofacial Unit, led by Professor David David - who did some incredible work on my face).  Maybe one day I will go back for a visit, but not in a hurry seeing as my memories of residing there are not the happiest ones (understandably).  Thanks for talking to me.  I am enjoying the interaction.  Sometimes I can be a bit intense too, and need to lighten up a bit, as you may have noticed.   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I reread what I wrote. Oh dear, it does sound rather pompous! Perhaps I'll reword it: Contribute something I find interesting and I enjoy constructing, in the hope that others will find it interesting, enjoyable & entertaining to read & look at, informative and, maybe, useful. My primary goal is for me to feel like I'm doing something that's worth doing, and that I am not just using wikipedia as an excuse to escape from reality and avoid the real world. I assure you that my goal and motivation is extremely selfish! However, I find it easy to self-justify time on wikipedia as opposed to time sitting in a room with a television displaying "biggest looser", "bachelorette", "the farmer takes a wife", "Australian idol", "Big Brother", etc. As I have suggested, from the complete lack of interest displayed by others, the "benefits to society" of my little project are not significant! (And they're not going to help global warming, either.) So please, don't feel bad about your own motivations; they sound like a good set of reasons to me! Never-the-less, "being positive" is good advice. One only lives once - there's no enjoyment in being miserable about it! Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "It does sound rather pompous"? No, not at all; you sound modest.  Pompous is if you say something like "I am making a positive difference to society, and all should follow my wonderous example!!"  Re: Television.  I particularly dislike useless, time-wasting, ridiculous advertisements.  And some free-to-air channels really love laying it on e.g. 450 seconds of show, 210 seconds of advertisements, 450 seconds of show, etc.  And as for escaping from reality, apart from some stories on the news, nothing is further from real life than some of the material that appears on television.   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Colours
Pink Violet Fuchsia   Red Crimson Maroon Purple   Aqua Blue Navy   Lime Green Teal Olive   Yellow Gold Orange Coral   Tan Chocolate Brown   Silver Gray


 * Yes, I would say that you seem to be learning a lot, and learning it very quickly! Well done. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks pdf... I am trying (and can be very trying).
 * That takes care of headings, external references, internal references, tables, quotes, fonts, colours , strike-through and sizes . Still to work out loads more.   B. Fairbairn  (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, "if you've got it, flaunt it"! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing=1 WIDTH=140


 * style="background:black;"|.
 * style="background:red;"|
 * style="background:green;"|
 * style="background:purple;"|
 * style="background:yellow;"|
 * style="background:pink;"|
 * style="background:black;"|.
 * style="background:black;"|.
 * style="background:violet;"|
 * style="background:crimson;"|
 * style="background:brown;"|
 * style="background:navy;"|
 * style="background:silver;"|
 * style="background:black;"|.
 * style="background:black;"|.
 * style="background:blue;"|
 * style="background:maroon;"|
 * style="background:fuchsia;"|
 * style="background:olive;"|
 * style="background:chocolate;"|
 * style="background:black;"|.
 * style="background:black;"|.
 * style="background:lime;"|
 * style="background:orange;"|
 * style="background:aqua;"|
 * style="background:gold;"|
 * style="background:teal;"|
 * style="background:black;"|.
 * }
 * style="background:gold;"|
 * style="background:teal;"|
 * style="background:black;"|.
 * }
 * }

New tricks!
I've recently learnt some new tricks that may amuse you, and you may even find them useful. [Before I start, do you know about   ? Whatever you put between them stays as text and doesn't get treated as markup. e.g. the text xxyy  can be seen on this page, but if I remove the    , then it will do what it is supposed to (i.e. xxyy) ]

Right!


 * First trick:

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

results in:

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.


 * Second trick

results in:

User:Pdfpdf and
 * More tricks at

User:Pdfpdf/Tools and references

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating an interesting discussion
Thank you for raising the interesting discussion at Village Pump on whether we should have days when the main page of Wikipedia does not mention topics to do with the United States. I have left most of my thoughts on the issue there. I still think that this could be the seed of a new article along the lines of "Cultural Bias on the Web" (many books have been written on web resources, and it would not surprise me if some of these mention this issue). If we can find some reliable sources, a new article may be forthcoming.

Incidentally, I see you included my comment about Wikipedia being a culturally biassed encyclopaedia as one of the ten comments, of which five were useful and five were trivial. As a matter of interest, which did it go into of these two categories? I am not from the U.S. myself (I am British and have wondered whether you are from the United States or from elsewhere. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. B. Fairbairn   Talk  10:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I thought you may be interested in User:Chenzw/Sig, which appears to use edit count to "randomize" the color of the signature. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

B. Fairbairn  Talk  10:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Navy  Discuss Navy  Discuss